check out these two graphs. don't get all wrapped up in the correlation between co2 and temperature because the graph is too small to tell which comes first. i have seen other graphs that show that co2 concentration in the atmosphere lags global warming by an average of 800 years, but this can't be seen in these graphs. pay special attention to the interglacial warming periods and then you tell me what is so unique about our global temperatures now.

check out these two graphs. don't get all wrapped up in the correlation between co2 and temperature because the graph is too small to tell which comes first. i have seen other graphs that show that co2 concentration in the atmosphere lags global warming by an average of 800 years, but this can't be seen in these graphs. pay special attention to the interglacial warming periods and then you tell me what is so unique about our global temperatures now.

As the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean, CO2 is emitted, amplyfying that warming. The Cycles themselves do not have enough change in energy to cause the deglaciations. Only the increase in heat retained through the feedback loop of the increase in CO2 does that.

Now it only takes an increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm to cause a deglaciation. We have added another 100+ ppm in the last 150 years through the burning of fossil fuels. And are seeing the warming that is the result of that.

However, because our actions have caused the increase of CH4 by 150%, and we have put an abundance of industrial GHGs in the atmosphere, many more than 10,000 times as effective of a GHG as CO2, the real equivelant GHG level is over 450 ppm of CO2.

We have not seen a level like that on Earth in millions of years. And for that level to be reached in only 150 years means that the climate changes caused by that level will be rather adrupt.

Even if the Ocean Clathrates do not kick in. Which they have already started to do in the Arctic Ocean.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

As the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean, CO2 is emitted, amplyfying that warming. The Cycles themselves do not have enough change in energy to cause the deglaciations. Only the increase in heat retained through the feedback loop of the increase in CO2 does that.

Now it only takes an increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm to cause a deglaciation. We have added another 100+ ppm in the last 150 years through the burning of fossil fuels. And are seeing the warming that is the result of that.

However, because our actions have caused the increase of CH4 by 150%, and we have put an abundance of industrial GHGs in the atmosphere, many more than 10,000 times as effective of a GHG as CO2, the real equivelant GHG level is over 450 ppm of CO2.

We have not seen a level like that on Earth in millions of years. And for that level to be reached in only 150 years means that the climate changes caused by that level will be rather adrupt.

Even if the Ocean Clathrates do not kick in. Which they have already started to do in the Arctic Ocean.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

Click to expand...

Let's assume that your line of logic is correct. The Milankovitch cycles awaken CO2 and as the warming starts, unaided by CO2, an outgassing of CO2 occurs. When this outgassing occurs, feedback loop commences and the level of CO2 stagnates at a higher level.

Why did the increase in CO2 stop?

If the feedback theory is correct, why does the feedback stop? It does not increase due to heating and does not decrease due to cooling. According to the line of logic, the power of the Sun is negligible and yet, if the Sun's irradience is stable, so is CO2. If the irradience drops or rises, so does CO2.

It is provable that the Sun causes both temperature and CO2 to increase and decrease and only presumable that CO2 causes temperature to increase or decrease.

Until it is provable that CO2 has the effect that you contemplate, making changes to the real world based on dreamworld scenarios is not rational.

As the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean, CO2 is emitted, amplyfying that warming. The Cycles themselves do not have enough change in energy to cause the deglaciations. Only the increase in heat retained through the feedback loop of the increase in CO2 does that.

Now it only takes an increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm to cause a deglaciation. We have added another 100+ ppm in the last 150 years through the burning of fossil fuels. And are seeing the warming that is the result of that.

However, because our actions have caused the increase of CH4 by 150%, and we have put an abundance of industrial GHGs in the atmosphere, many more than 10,000 times as effective of a GHG as CO2, the real equivelant GHG level is over 450 ppm of CO2.

We have not seen a level like that on Earth in millions of years. And for that level to be reached in only 150 years means that the climate changes caused by that level will be rather adrupt.

Even if the Ocean Clathrates do not kick in. Which they have already started to do in the Arctic Ocean.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

Click to expand...

Let's assume that your line of logic is correct. The Milankovitch cycles awaken CO2 and as the warming starts, unaided by CO2, an outgassing of CO2 occurs. When this outgassing occurs, feedback loop commences and the level of CO2 stagnates at a higher level.

Why did the increase in CO2 stop?

The increase did not stop. Sequestering by mineral weathering and ocean life speeded up. As the Milankovic Cycles started on the downside, providing less heat to the oceans, the sequestering of CO2 continued, reducing the GHG effect, and creating a negative feedback loop.

If the feedback theory is correct, why does the feedback stop? It does not increase due to heating and does not decrease due to cooling.

You just made a statement for which you have provided zero evidence. What do you mean that it does not increase or decrease according to temperature? Do you know nothing of the solubility of CO2 in water at various temperatures?

According to the line of logic, the power of the Sun is negligible and yet, if the Sun's irradience is stable, so is CO2. If the irradience drops or rises, so does CO2.

Once again, what the hell are you talking about? The Milankovic Cycles have zero to do with the irradiance of the sun. That is a seperate issue. And at present, the TSI has actually had a miniscule decline, even as we are rapidly heating.

It is provable that the Sun causes both temperature and CO2 to increase and decrease and only presumable that CO2 causes temperature to increase or decrease.

Presumable? The effects of the absorption of infrared by CO2 in the atmosphere was demonstrated by Tyndal 150 years ago, as you well know. No one has come forward to disprove what he demonstrated in 150 years.

Until it is provable that CO2 has the effect that you contemplate, making changes to the real world based on dreamworld scenarios is not rational.

Click to expand...

It has been proven, as you well know. As anyone with a basic education in science well knows.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!